World of Darkness Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2 from Hardsuit Labs

[Tyranicon]

Lobotomy Corporation, no?

It's not quite the same as SCP, but same general wheelhouse.

I’m not impressed. Their tryhard monsters include a weeping angel that shits bloody diarrhea, a genocidal lizard with limitless regeneration, a giant titty monster that brainwashes anyone who stares at it too long, a demonic teddybear that rapes female employees, an undead fetus that mind controls and gnaws female employees to death, and… wow, who the fuck came up with this misogynistic torture porn?

I know the classic folkloric stuff is passé now, but those stories lasted thousands of years for a reason. Even the 20th century ufology and cryptids is just a repackaging of fairies and monsters.

I agree the most popular ones are kind of lame. As with most things, some of the lesser-known ones are more interesting.

Besides, it is very much a kitchen-sink situation, since it is a shared universe that anybody can contribute to.

 

[Delterius]

SCP is the fandom dot wikia of horror of course most of it sucks.

 

[Tweed]

SCP used to be cool, but like anything that the mainstream catches wind of it became overran with troons and faggots.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Lobotomy Corporation, no?

It's not quite the same as SCP, but same general wheelhouse.

I’m not impressed. Their tryhard monsters include a weeping angel that shits bloody diarrhea, a genocidal lizard with limitless regeneration, a giant titty monster that brainwashes anyone who stares at it too long, a demonic teddybear that rapes female employees, an undead fetus that mind controls and gnaws female employees to death, and… wow, who the fuck came up with this misogynistic torture porn?

I know the classic folkloric stuff is passé now, but those stories lasted thousands of years for a reason. Even the 20th century ufology and cryptids is just a repackaging of fairies and monsters.

I agree the most popular ones are kind of lame. As with most things, some of the lesser-known ones are more interesting.

Besides, it is very much a kitchen-sink situation, since it is a shared universe that anybody can contribute to.

SCP used to be cool, but like anything that the mainstream catches wind of it became overran with troons and faggots.

yeah, I read the kiwifarms thread. I’m not touching that shit with a ten foot pole. Also, if google trends are any indication its popularity is fading and not worth cashing in on anymore. The latest fad seems to be demonically possessed kids shows and analog horror.

I’d like to use some elements of analog horror in my urban fantasy. I appreciate the retro aesthetic. I despise all the ridiculous attempts by corpos to “modernize” shit by adding twitter and tiktok. Social media is cancer.

 

[J1M]

What videogame industry are you talking about?

THE video game industry, obviously. The theory that video games are made for an idea and not to make money is simply outlandish.

Look at EA, Ubisoft, CD Projekt or even Paradox. When Hearts of Iron IV was discussed (mainly in how streamlined it was) the lead developer said something along the lines of "If we want to keep making games, then we need to reach as many players as possible so we can afford to keep making games and not end up on the streets". This is business first and foremost. And that means profit.

Stupid "inclusive" bullshit is mainly PR people or suits, who have no idea what's going on, giving green light to some devs high on crack, because they think it'll mean their game will appear as "progressive" and "progressive" means good PR in their book. But you don't really have to give a shit about that, as long as your game is solid. Hell, you can even afford to be "controversive".

A common and incorrect refrain. If one is willing to accept predictable profits, one can limit costs and produce consistent sequels for a niche audience. Giant game companies are not willing to do that. They want 100x returns on their investment and will burn anything to the ground that they can for another roll of the dice.

There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.

Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.

 

[Harthwain]

A common and incorrect refrain. If one is willing to accept predictable profits, one can limit costs and produce consistent sequels for a niche audience. Giant game companies are not willing to do that. They want 100x returns on their investment and will burn anything to the ground that they can for another roll of the dice.

There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.

Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.

1) Just because developing games is a business it doesn't mean everyone has a good business sense. Of course, good business sense isn't always a good thing for the players or their games (loot boxes and other similarly scummy tactics being a prime example).

2) Aren't giant companies like Ubisoft and Activision releasing "the same game" over and over again (Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty) in order to get "predictable profits"? I'd argue this pretty much fits the "sequels to games delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience" behavior.

 

[J1M]

A common and incorrect refrain. If one is willing to accept predictable profits, one can limit costs and produce consistent sequels for a niche audience. Giant game companies are not willing to do that. They want 100x returns on their investment and will burn anything to the ground that they can for another roll of the dice.

There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.

Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.

1) Just because developing games is a business it doesn't mean everyone has a good business sense. Of course, good business sense isn't always a good thing for the players or their games (loot boxes and other similarly scummy tactics being a prime example).

2) Aren't giant companies like Ubisoft and Activision releasing "the same game" over and over again (Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty) in order to get "predictable profits"? I'd argue this pretty much fits the "sequels to games delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience" behavior.

Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed already target the broadest market possible, so you won't see destructive choices in that way.

I would argue that they show the other symptom though in terms of spending too much. The team sizes are bloated given the content output and they would be better off releasing half as many products instead of having a 'B team'. In the persuit of big profits they are diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry.

It would be a more sustainable business if they had two flagship franchises that alternated release years.

 

[Harthwain]

Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed already target the broadest market possible, so you won't see destructive choices in that way.

They are still "producing consistent sequels" that manage to bring "predictable profits" (which is why they kept being made). Regardless of how much money are "poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets".

They're doing pretty much everything you said, only on a much bigger scale. And it sells. So much for "A common and incorrect refrain". Especially when it was said not by me, but a lead developer of Hearts of Iron IV from Paradox, the most played series from Paradox Interactive:

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/394360,1158310,281990,236850#All

In the persuit of big profits they are diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry.

You may consider it "diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry". For them it's just good business.

It would be a more sustainable business if they had two flagship franchises that alternated release years.

Activision's annual net income is higher each year for at least two decades. Ubisoft's annual net income is less successful, but still pretty good (between 80 to 100 millions of euro. Save for a single year where Ubisoft's annual net icome was -124 millions).

All things considered I'd say it's pretty damn sustainable business model if they are able to keep doing it for years (13 in case of Assassin's Creed, 19 in case of Call of Duty).

 

[SlightlyRadioactive]

It kinda sucks that none of the SCP games are good. There's so much to play with there that it's kind of a wasted.

The SCP universe is so rich, its just sad that most of the games are simple first person horror games.

 

[Delterius]

There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.

Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.

I agree. The economic rationale has clear limitations. It's not about what executives greenlight to actually make money, it's what people *think* makes money in the first place. Which is all about marketing. Game developers aren't just chasing target demographics, they are also in an irrational arms race with each other. Dragon Age 2 chased the 'Call of Duty demographic', which was misguided at best. But that's not all. Dragon Age 3 had to be some sort of open world because Skyrim was gonna come out. It also had to have horses just like TES.

 

[Tyranicon]

There's no restraint or sophistication. If there was, we would see competent sequels to games like Dragon Age delivered in the same engine targeted at the guaranteed audience.

Instead we see unnecessary engine changes, ridiculous amounts of money poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets.

I agree. The economic rationale has clear limitations. It's not about what executives greenlight to actually make money, it's what people *think* makes money in the first place. Which is all about marketing. Game developers aren't just chasing target demographics, they are also in an irrational arms race with each other. Dragon Age 2 chased the 'Call of Duty demographic', which was misguided at best. But that's not all. Dragon Age 3 had to be some sort of open world because Skyrim was gonna come out. It also had to have horses just like TES.

People who work in the games industry, especially those in market research, are overpaid idiots.

If they weren't, they would've realized years ago that spending millions of dollars on celebrity voice actors, top-notch graphics, and hiring an army of developers is strictly inferior to 10 dudes with Unity shitting out yet another spooky crafting survival game.

 

[J1M]

Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed already target the broadest market possible, so you won't see destructive choices in that way.

They are still "producing consistent sequels" that manage to bring "predictable profits" (which is why they kept being made). Regardless of how much money are "poured into graphics and motion capture, 10 staff writers on a project, and other signs of sloshy budgets".

They're doing pretty much everything you said, only on a much bigger scale. And it sells. So much for "A common and incorrect refrain". Especially when it was said not by me, but a lead developer of Hearts of Iron IV from Paradox, the most played series from Paradox Interactive:

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/394360,1158310,281990,236850#All

In the persuit of big profits they are diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry.

You may consider it "diluting the brand by releasing a weaker product every second entry". For them it's just good business.

It would be a more sustainable business if they had two flagship franchises that alternated release years.

Activision's annual net income is higher each year for at least two decades. Ubisoft's annual net income is less successful, but still pretty good (between 80 to 100 millions of euro. Save for a single year where Ubisoft's annual net icome was -124 millions).

All things considered I'd say it's pretty damn sustainable business model if they are able to keep doing it for years (13 in case of Assassin's Creed, 19 in case of Call of Duty).

I don't know why you are confused. Niche games are consistently destroyed by targeting too wide of a market. Obviously that would not apply to games that already intentionally target the widest mainstream market.

I intentionally didn't bring this up before because I thought it would be too obvious, but on rare occasions the big publishers make the same mistake with something like Battlefield V by creating a disabled black woman as their protagonist for a historical war game. The entire market of gamers wasn't enough. They thought they could convince women who don't buy games to purchase it as well.

 

[Delterius]

If they weren't, they would've realized years ago that spending millions of dollars on celebrity voice actors, top-notch graphics, and hiring an army of developers is strictly inferior to 10 dudes with Unity shitting out yet another spooky crafting survival game.

So why don't they just do that? Well, I think it depends on where you're at.

If you're an independent studio you're torn between paying the bills and doing the kind of things 'you want', or rather that fit your workplace culture. You have people like Larian who play the long game, working within niches and doing mercenary jobs here and there. You have subsidiaries like Obsidian and BioWare, who work within the corporate culture of their larger publishers. And then you've got people like Troika, who reportedly could have stayed afloat for a while longer but refused to do contract stuff they didn't jive with.

Yeah in theory a modern day studio could just play it smart and make mobile titles and streamable games. They are bound to strike gold eventually. But if the actual people involved are like the bunch of Troika and they'd rather make Arcanums and VTMs, what do you do then? A dignified death seems to be the answer.

With owned studios it is a tug of war. You were bought or set up with a purpose and the bills are paid for by acquiring resources from the parent company. The counterpart to that is how the studio head serves as the interface by which commands are received from the top. Even when EA or Microsoft take a hands off position their culture, their schedules, their expectations, their marketing all seep from above. Should the studio head subtly push back, they are just delaying the inevitable. I'd imagine that EA couldn't make a chill indie studio if they wanted to.

So what do these giants like Microsoft actually want? AAA cinematic operas? AA well made niche products? Indie stuff? It will depend. Maybe the president of EA needs to be hyped up so that they'll greenlight extra dev time. Maybe it's just the zeitgeist of the 2010s and everyone wants to make a AAA Skyrim killer. Or even better: maybe they don't have to pick at all. Microsoft has infinite money. They aren't (just) competing to make profit off games, they are fighting a global war over our culture against the likes of Sony, Amazon, Tencent, and so on. '10 guys with Unity making survival shit is efficient? Cool. Buy me 5 of those and add their crap to the Xbox Gamer Pass'.

You know what's funny though? The real efficiency is straight up casinos. Which is why Konami made the plunge and became a pachinko company.

 

[Vincente]

Here's your "remastered" Bloodlines, fellas.

 

[Skinwalker]

Is this still dead?

 

[sosmoflux]

No there's a secret developer secretly behind the scenes making it even better than before. Brian's coming back. Rik's making a new OST. They've fixed all the problems and are all true fans of the original.
We're going home.

 

[Tyranicon]

No there's a secret developer secretly behind the scenes making it even better than before. Brian's coming back. Rik's making a new OST. They've fixed all the problems and are all true fans of the original.
We're going home.

It turns out the the game is already complete. Avellone played it and said it made him weep tears of joy. Bethesda said it was delaying Starfield because it didn't even want to release in the same year as this masterpiece. Every other PnP in existence switches over to the ruleset used by VtMB2, as it is mathematically proven the best. Jeff Vogel finally, albeit begrudgingly, agrees to use new graphics.

Parades were had in the streets. Crime went down dramatically. Nascent AI in development across various bunkers hidden across the globe also play it. They decide unanimously to not turn humans into paperclips and instead usher in a post-scarcity utopia, where copies of VtMB2 are distributed for free and is required reading in education facilities.

We have won the game. The experiment of life is over. Hail to the victors. Hail to paradox and its developers. Their names will be etched onto every molecule in existence, proclaiming their achievements for eternity.

fun times!

Are we at the point where we start larping in the style of the That Which Sleeps thread?

 

[Delterius]

never bet against beckett

 

[NecroLord]

Don't open it.

 

[Harthwain]

I don't know why you are confused.

Or am I?

I intentionally didn't bring this up before because I thought it would be too obvious, but on rare occasions the big publishers make the same mistake with something like Battlefield V by creating a disabled black woman as their protagonist for a historical war game. The entire market of gamers wasn't enough. They thought they could convince women who don't buy games to purchase it as well.

This still supports my point: they are trying to use a trend (or what they think is a trend) to generate money, not burn money to "send a message".

 

[J1M]

I don't know why you are confused.

Or am I?

I intentionally didn't bring this up before because I thought it would be too obvious, but on rare occasions the big publishers make the same mistake with something like Battlefield V by creating a disabled black woman as their protagonist for a historical war game. The entire market of gamers wasn't enough. They thought they could convince women who don't buy games to purchase it as well.

This still supports my point: they are trying to use a trend (or what they think is a trend) to generate money, not burn money to "send a message".

At least we figured out your confusion. My posts aren't about ESG scores.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

universe is so rich

Any universe can be rich. Potential is infinite, but ultimately irrelevant. What matters is execution. Most people have little in the way of autonomy or creativity, so right there you already have barriers. And even if you are creative and can maintain a coherent vision, you don't necessarily have relevant skill or sufficient funding.

You want a game where an organization hunts down various monsters and monkey's paws to lock them away in boxes? You already have games like XCOM or Phoenix Point to provide some idea of the logistics involved. Find a way to fund and produce it. If devs aren't already making it, then that can mean that the IP doesn't attract those kinds of devs, there's not much of a market, or it is prohibitively expensive for indies to make.

Like, I have this idea for a game about various organizations of monster hunters. You have vigilantes, freelancers, chosen ones, amateur online communities, government task forces, deranged big game hunters, heartless corporations that harvest magical creatures and employ bioengineered killing machines, professional ghost fumigators, assassins, templars, secret wings of the Vatican that employ antichrist candidates, philanthropic institutes secretly run by well-intentioned Roswell grays, etc. But unless I can realize it and find an audience, then it will never be more than potential.

 

[Herumor]

Don't open it.

And yet I keep coming back to this thread.

 

[Caim]

Don't open it.

Don't open, [redacted] inside.

 

[Tyranicon]

If devs aren't already making it, then that can mean that the IP doesn't attract those kinds of devs, there's not much of a market, or it is prohibitively expensive for indies to make.

It's because of the creative commons license that SCP is under. That's why nobody serious wants to work on the setting, myself included. Not that I'm a serious person or anything...

SCP is under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license, which is so interesting that it's basically like a SCP itself. In super basic terms, anybody who uses SCP content to produce media, that media is now also shareware under the same terms.

It's an infectious license. It makes it hard to protect "your" IP. I've been told that people can literally put your game up on another storefront and they would have decent legal grounds to do so.